 Welcome back. You're still watching the breakfast on plus TV Africa and to a first major conversation State High Court in Umahia, Abia State in Nigeria, Southeast has declared that the night a rule that the Nigerian federal government violated the fundamental human rights of Detained leader of the indigenous people of BFR group Namdi Kano when the military invaded his home on the on September 2000 in September 2017 Of course in that operation that was well publicized with Videos surfacing online to look at the implications of this and the award of one billionaire as damages to Namdi Kano We have a scarce joining us va phone on the breakfast this morning legal practitioner. He is over and events rather Ophelia. Good morning to you miss a Vance Ophelia Morning. Thank you very much for joining us The federal government of course declaring that that invasion by the military on a Namdi Kano's home in Abia State in 2017 was a validation of his fundamental human rights one billionaire Awarded as compensation to Namdi Kano Of course also the federal government acts being asked to tender a letter of apology to him and publish this apology in Three national dailies. What to take on this? Yes, it is important that we understand that This ruling on this judgment that was given is different from the ongoing case He has This one is a civil case sometimes in 2017 when During the tendency of the of the trier They are They are me they that is permit sheets. I'm at the end of the day He left the country it won't do it was later in the picture that Don't say but the federal government was absolutely responsible for that if I try what I'm going from the circumstances It's a wedding and you better this one and I'm like Support And now the judgment The talking about Could have happened to any of that but The federal government must be the position of that judgment or That is it for the position and it is important to also stress that the enforcement of the fundamental rights of Nigeria is critical when there is violation. In this case, it's, you know, right to dignity of human presence when violated, right to life and the rest of it too, the threat and the level of big damage that was leveled against them. It's one that it's a celebration for the judicial system on enforcing the right of manganese. So the ball is manned and the court of the federal government will go ahead and fight the abolishment accordingly. And then pay the song, stay paid in the judgment. Okay, of course, the lawyer to Namdi Kanu in this particular matter, Aloi Ejimako, did point out that there may be implications of this for the ongoing case, the criminal case, before the High Court in Abuja, presided over by Diyanbojasis Bintanyaku, based on this particular ruling by the court in Umayah, particularly the fact that he said in a court, if your fundamental rights were violated, then it means legally you cannot be said to have jumped bail because the idea of jumping bail and the rendition are related to what happened to the military invasion in 2017. What's it take on the implications of this ruling for the ongoing trial? Okay, just before we actually come to the answer, Mr. Ivan Soufili, let's quickly take a look at the track from the lawyer. We'll be right back. That by the grace of God, by the time the judge calmly, dispassionately examine the step-by-step destruction of these counts, then, like I submitted in court, she will go to the next stage, which is to grant us our prayer too. And our prayer too is that there being no valid legal counts in the charge to defend, she should dismiss all of them and set free, that is discharge and acquit, mazzi, and not the kind of any offenses. What the prosecution tried to do was to insist that because today was set down for hearing that the trial must go on, notwithstanding the pendency of this application, which we have filed, and not also withstanding the pendency of the second application, the 26-page motion for bail, and I pointed out to the court that that was not the law, that is not the law, that the Supreme Court has held in several cases. All right, Barista, if you can hear us, that was the lead counsel to the NAMDICALO team, who has joined the team yesterday or Tuesday, rather, Chief Michael Zekome, S.C.N. You were telling us about the implications of this ruling in the human rights enforcement case on the criminal trial going on? Yes, because the federal government has maintained, in the fact that the federal government has, before this, we are in, they have maintained that it jumped there, but part of the function of this day that was granted to me was that it should not travel out of the country or not there. What is the focus of that? It's the same federal government that went and did this move, and then it went there with so much power, made a lot of people, and now they want to rule for its life. Remember the court has given a judgment that its rights were violated. It cannot be true any longer that the actual crime was given away. We could have stayed before the criminal trial, if it were not for the part that the federal government went and struck, you know, it's a revenue. Now, having done that, it's a lot. So that issue of jumping there should be a little bit, quickly, we said in the charge, we didn't jump there. We jumped there, you walked out of the country by the army. That's the implication. But Maristat? Okay, so let's further probe down and look at this particular case. With the fact that the federal government is expected to pay the sum of one billion, do you see the federal government obeying that, or do you see the government appealing this particular ruling of the courts? Wait, the comment I've got for now, I've not made any pronouncement after that, the word I want to give, let's talk to that. But by law, it doesn't mean it doesn't mean from the court of defense that, so there's actually options for appeal, which is the court of appeal, and then the court of defense. So if the federal government, we have two options for the federal government now. We got to pay the government sum, the government creditors, and make the apology unfortunately say, or appeal to the government, and then go for that to ask me the case. So that is the two options to think of the federal government. But what do you perceive? Do you see this government appealing the case or obeying the court ruling? Like I said, they have not made any pronouncement after what legal thing, what they are going to do. So if you may not be legally advising the court, what the federal government is going to do, what does that mean the intent to do in the platform? Okay, Barista, you've said that, of course, that Namdee Karno didn't jump bail and you were talking about the implications of this ruling for the ongoing trial of counter for treason, treasonable felony, and of course terrorism. However, if we go back in time, of course, the invasion of his home in Afarauku, Muaya was in September 2017 by the military, but in April when he was given a set of bail conditions, 12 conditions to be precise, two of them, or let me say three with that. Okay, let's go to two. First of all, he must not hold rallies. That's a bail condition. He held a rally. Secondly, he was told not to be in a crowd of more than 10 people. And of course the people around him in his home were definitely more than 10. So when you look at these bail conditions that were flouted by the man in question, can we say with all the amount of certainty, you as a lawyer, that he didn't jump bail? Well, flouting the conditions of the bail, I saw that he actually did not propose or that as regards the number of persons, he must not hold rally and all that. But that's not where the focus of the trial came from. The focus has always been that in jump bail. I'm saying that what are the circumstances that surround this bail, jump bail, talking about? Well, do you know the central argument that when the attempt was giving out almost, almost a few, a lot of persons were killed in the process? So I mean, if you look at this objective, if they have talked about the, would you have traveled out when the documents were letting the bail out of him? So I mean, he was more like running away for his life at the time of jump. Because we cannot be, the bail out of him cannot be a professional, a professional at that time. Then we'll take a position on this issue and stop this issue of jump bail, jump bail. So are you, are you saying Barca, are you saying that, that when you flout the conditions of your, your, your bail, it doesn't amount to, I mean, it's not, it's not an issue. It's not a reason for you to be taken back in. And that's not part of jumping bail. But some, some people have also argued. It does amount to, it does amount to violation of the order of the court, which is wrong. I condemn that. I'm not, I'm not speaking of this issue, like, because some of the finance involved. I'm saying any 19 years, you have certain basic fundamental rights. And that is why the court needs to get that judgment. Let's just look at, enter that person, who they're being involved. Aha. And when your life is threatened, when your, the dignity of your human person is fractured, and there are grievances that it seems to be the foundation of your fundamental rights. It's so far the range of the fundamental rights and costs them. And then get the judgment. And so as the court, for example, is right, that's not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not, I'm, they're followed. So I am saying that the issue of the people that were with him, and the rabbi, he held a trial to wage an invasion in the country. Those actions were completely wrong, because they, they run like things, the orders of the court. I'm saying of the issue of jumping here, outside the, there was a back end story to that. But that back end, which I'm still no more, it's all a little bit out. The reason I was talking about this thing, that something to carry that story along, that something to get at it. Well, you also still have some people saying that he's, as a matter of fact, that his right as a person to associate with others was also limited. And so the fact that he was seen in a gathering of people not necessarily maybe having a rally, that's also another issue. So it's quite very dicey. But moving on, what are the lessons that we can actually take from this? Are there other existing ruling on this matter? That what? What are the lessons that can be derived from this particular case and ruling? Yeah, what I would derive from this is that first of all, the orders of the court must follow the way, because the orders of the court are factored. The important thing that will be the orders of the court is only when we are not satisfied with it. The most important thing will be to balance and then appeal when there's an opportunity to do so. Okay. And also, the federal government should be careful with the way it goes about following the right of the court. The fact that this is the main charge, in one of the terms that don't mean we have been convicted. It's only the court of law that can determine whether the people of the charges, the federal government or not, have this decision is presumed innocent onto the contrary's problem. So the federal government should be patient and always follow the law in constitutionally flagged. If somebody is a letter of commitment on offense, it's still an allegation. So in the court of law, look into the issue with evidence and then come to a conclusion. We should not treat suspects and screening outs. We said in law that suspicion, suspicion however, okay, cannot, cannot be interpreted. You understand? So I think that the federal government should be careful. They should see the citizens as citizens that have rights, privileges and obligations as encapsulators in the provisions of the constitution. And I think that the citizens should be careful too. You know, if you look at the situation before the constitution, the citizens are drawn, okay, to obey the laws of the land, to obey their act, to make sure that they do not throw out the orders of the process and the constitution. So it is a two-way street. The government must act responsibly. The people must act responsibly. That is how to advance the movement. That is how to advance the process. All right. There's a school of thought by a certain section of the public in Nigeria, you know, reacting to this ruling in favor of Namdi Khanu. I'm saying that, you know, there might be an element of fear on the part of the trial judge and no intention to cast suspicion on this person, but this is what is out there in the court of public opinion that there might be some fear to give a ruling not in favor of Khanu because of the prevailing insecurity in the southeast, you know, and this may just be passing the buck to an appellate court or the court of appeal where the federal government is expected to go next. What do you say to this? You think the judge may have been afraid to rule otherwise? I don't think so. I don't think so. The judgment delivered was delivered based on evidence. You see, the fact that the Namdi Khanu's lawyer, what he judged me, there's no need to just throw into the high court, but I just know what he was judging me. So it happened in 2017 and it took a little process. Okay. And this process was completely exhausted at that level. What's the first thing that comes to mind? It's going to be judgment when it is judgment. It's going to be reason behind the situation, the racial, the law cycle, the evidence, and that. It's everything. Upon which it is already. It's not a decision that is just one of our rules, judgment. So I don't think that that is just a law. All right. Thank you very much. It's been quite interesting talking to you, Ivan's fairly legal practitioner. And of course, we'll keep monitoring the situation. The Council to the military did say that he has a consult with his people to see whether what next line of action to take. What you've said, you expect that there will be an appeal. So we'll be monitoring the developments to see what happens, especially also with the ongoing case before the Federal High Court in Abuja. But thank you very much for your time, Mr. Ivan. Thank you very much. And well, and that's the size of our first conversation. Fingers crossed would definitely bring you up to speed with what's making the rounds as regards the issue of Namdi Kano. In the meantime, we're going to take a break and when we come back, we'll be heading to the second conversation right here. Whether or not the subsidy should be removed, who is saying what and when should that happen?